Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!ucivax!gateway
From: Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu (Alf Hansen)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Sending mail from internet to x400 networks
Message-ID: <910115165030*@MHS>
Date: 15 Jan 91 23:07:09 GMT
References: <8321.663971302@nma>
Lines: 27
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
X400-Originator: Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu
Content-Identifier: 910115165030
In-Reply-To: <8321.663971302@nma >
X400-Received: by mta pilot.cs.wisc.edu in /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed;
               Tue, 15 Jan 1991 16:50:41 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed;
               Tue, 15 Jan 1991 15:50:32 +0000
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;hansen663979832.18hermit.cs.uw]

> Hello Alf -- Thought that in RFC987/1148, we used "/" instead of ";",
> just because ";" is much more troublesome in RFC822 addresses.  When did
> this change?  I have been seeing the ";" used exclusively in examples
> now for several months?  What is going on here?  Best...\Stef

Stef,

I try to make my examples as implementation-independent as possible.
We should try to avoid linkage to user-intefaces when we exchange
X.400 Standard Attribute addresses between persons, because the
actual user intaface may differ considerably from implementation
to implementation. The only implementation independent "standard"
covering this issue, that I know about, is the RARE document
(I forgot the name) written by Ruediger Grimm and Denise Heagerty
about X.400 address notation. This document says ; Therfore I am
using it in my examples. The document also says: ADMD instead of
A and PRMD instead of P.

I am not sure what RFC 987/1148 says, but that is just a technical
mapping document, and the formats described there, is not a recommendation
intended for exchange of addresses between human beings.

Best regards,
Alf H.

BTW I think / is more human readable than ; and I am sure people
will understand both...